entry level digital SLR?

[Kofoed]

I went for the Nikon D40 based on a number of things, but the guy who posted the Ken Rockwell site pushed me over the edge. Yeah, it has a plastic lens body, but it is lighter.

I was fooling around with the settings and took a bunch of pictures last night, and installed the software on the lap top this morning. The pics came out much better than I could do with my other cameras, and better than I though I could do. Good idiot compensation. The software is easy to install and I was manipulating pictures right away.

Going up into the Sierra this weekend and am going to be clicking away, yeah!!

 

[WanderingFZJ]

D-SLR's

Personally I am a Cannon guy, though I have used both. For an entry level SLR I like Cannon because how they feel when having to shoot one handed. I have the XSi right now (I know entry level, but thats what i could afford). If you are looking for a cheap one, like sk8rdi16 said, XTi's you can pick up cheap, I would recommend getting an image stabilized lens (a little pricier but worth it) it will compensate for a little shake so you can get amazing pics without a tri-pod.

I have zoom lenses for convenience but most people prefer staright lenses and take advantege of the image quality (mega-pixels) and do the zoom on the computer.

 

[sandcruiser]

canon vs. nikon has been rehashed about as much as tire choices for land cruisers.

pick up a couple of models of each camera and see which one you prefer. go with it. don't look back.


the one place in which canon wins handily is in wide-angle lenses. Most (all?) Nikon dSLR cameras effectively crop images to make the lens 50% "longer". ie: a 50mm will act like a 75mm. That's just fine if you like longer lenses and portraits, but not so very great if you are most interested in interior photography or landscapes.

I think that entry-level canons suffer the same effect, but higher-end models have sensors the same size as a traditional 35mm film.

NB: Nikon may have come out with a solution. I don't follow the news that closely.

More food for thought: Minolta? I think, has incorporated anti-shake tech into the body of the camera. GREAT move. All sorts of old glass is now "VR" or Anti-shake or whatever. Which might be worth getting if you take a lot of images with low ambient light.

I have a couple of Nikons, by the way, and I'm happy with the Nikon system but would consider switching to Canon because there is a repair center in Costa Rica, which is nice. I prefer the Nikon flash options, and I prefer the controls on Nikons, but that is probably due to familiarity.

 

[Bogo]

the one place in which canon wins handily is in wide-angle lenses. Most (all?) Nikon dSLR cameras effectively crop images to make the lens 50% "longer". ie: a 50mm will act like a 75mm. That's just fine if you like longer lenses and portraits, but not so very great if you are most interested in interior photography or landscapes.

I think that entry-level canons suffer the same effect, but higher-end models have sensors the same size as a traditional 35mm film.

NB: Nikon may have come out with a solution. I don't follow the news that closely..

Nikon finally has a full frame DSLR. In his price range he can't even touch a used one so not worth talking about.

For wide angle shots, Canon has the EF-S 10-22 zoom lens. It's as sharp as most primes in it's mm range.